Sunday, March 31, 2013

One writer suggested that people view this from the perspective of nationality with Americans believing her to be innocent, while Italians believe her to be guilty.

What do you think?

Statement Analysis of Amanda Knox shows clear:

Attempt to deceive and blame another;
Deception
Guilty knowledge of a sexual homicide

In order to be seen as deceptive, the will to deceive must be present. This means that Amanda Knox deliberately said (and wrote) things that she knew was not true, and would be viewed as pointing guilt at someone else.

Amanda Knox also gave us a Confession by Pronoun. This is when she wrote, "my involvement" acknowledging that she was, in fact, involved.

Pronouns do not lie. They are instinctive, and we are, as humans, 100% efficient in their use. We are exhaustively efficient, to the point where we say that pronouns (and articles) are exempt from the principle of personal, internal, subjective dictionary.

Her supporters say she was beaten and worn down into a false confession. This is also not supported by the language.

When one gives a false confession, the words will not come from experiential memory. Amanda Knox' words show that she was involved, not simply in a homicide, but in a sexual homicide. She was present for the killing of her roommate Meredith.

We have seen passionate defense of her, with most pointing to prosecutorial misconduct. This very well may be the case, but it does not mean she was not involved in the murder. She was originally found guilty, but when the verdict was overturned, her supporters argued that she was innocent based upon the second trial. This argument can then be used to support innocence for both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.

What do you think?

Here is both a poll, and her own written statement with the analysis previously published (and updated).

I add in to our poll another choice, so consider carefully what you choose. We'll look at the breakdown of not only guilt or innocence, but whether some believe she was not only present, but active in the assault.

Transcript of Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested.The statement is in italics, with statement analysis in bold type. Words that are underlined are done so for emphasis.

This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.

The opening line appears deceptive.Dr. Paul Eckman teaches that testifying to memory failure is almost always deceptive. We don't know what drugs may have impacted her when this statement was made, but failure to remember is most always deceptive, especially in high stress situations. It should be noted that the word "this" indicates closeness, whereas the word "that" shows distance. On average, we see the word "that" used more frequently with memory failure. People report what they can remember.

Note the inclusion of sensitive words, "very" strange, and "really" what happened. She notes that others are confused as she is. In a criminal investigation, innocent people (those who did not "do it" nor were involved in it) say so. They do so quickly, and without sensitivity indicators. Even in the most emotionally upsetting circumstances, a denial is found early and is comprised of:

I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.

Passive language "I have been told" rather than who told her what specifically. But far more telling is the following words within her statement possibly an embedded admission: "I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened". This is not something an innocent person generally says, even in the form of a question, nor in a reflection of others' words. Someone not at the crime scene would not frame these words, nor place herself there.

Note that she Wants to confirm, which is different than confirming and is a weak assertion.

She wants to confirm something that to her, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible. This means that, to someone else, it would not be impossible; only to "her", and only on the condition of being asked a few days ago. This is a strong indication that Amanda Knox is lying. It would also be impossible "a few days" ago, but as more information has come forward, it may be different now for her.

Is the something that she wants to confirm something that would be different to someone else (hence the use of "to me"). This is why extra words are essential in analysis. She is not being asked "a few days ago", she is being asked in the present. It appears that her perspective on the "something" she wants to confirm is different now than it was a few days ago.

Also note that "would be impossible" is different than "is impossible." The addition of "would be" changes her claim from something that already happened into a future event; making it weaker.

I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:

"I know" is strong and with the first person singular, it is something that she recognizes and asserts. Notice how "I know" is unlike her other statements. It is not "I believe" nor is it qualified with "I know that in my heart" or "I know that in my mind..." or any other additional words. That Raffaele has said that she was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder is something strong to Knox.

Next notice that it is only "in my mind" that there are things that may be elsewhere; not just in her mind. This is likely deceptive, as it is only in her mind; and not in reality. It is an attempt to avoid the stress of lying.

When people recount events from memory, they generally don't call it a "story", a word which conjures images of a made up tale.

On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with meat the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.

Note that when the word "left" is used, it often indicates missing information. 70% of the missing information is due to time constraints, rushing, traffic, etc, with the other 30% being sensitive information.

Note whenever the number 3 enters a statement as it is known as the "liar's number" It should not be considered deceptive on its own, only noted in context. When someone wishes to be deceptive and chooses a number, it is often "3" unless the subject is asked how many drinks he or she had, and then the number is "two". The number 3 enters such as: "I was approached by 3 men" or "At 3 oclock on the third floor..." etc. It is not an indicator of deception on its own, for it is possible to be approached by 3 men on the third floor; only that it should be noted and later factored into the full analysis.

Note that the word "with" shows distance:

"My wife and I went shopping."

"I went shopping with my wife."

These are two ways of saying almost the same thing. A follow up question to B will likely show why distance entered into the statement; such as "I didn't want to go shopping" etc. Here, the distance is between her and Raeffale: "Raeffale was with me" but then immediately changes it to:

"we" which shows closeness, except that she has a need to emphasize the closeness by explanation: "We, Raffele and I stayed..." This need to emphasize, along with the needless repetition is an indicator that she is being deceptive.

Note that Patrik "told" me, rather than he "said" indicates firmness; It may be that she and Patrick argued, or that she wants to emphasize authority. But whatever the need, she uses "because" (which explains why something happened) making the statement itself, along with Patrik, sensitive.

Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember.

Note that she "now" remembers which, like the word "but" (which refutes what was previously stated) stands to change her account.

Note that "goodbye", "see you later" etc, in homicide cases can indicate the time of death.

Note the return of "I know" which is strong. What does she know? She knows that it does not match up with Raffaele's testimony. weak commitment to the text. If the subject does not own the text, neither can we.

I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believewe relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made loveto Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.

Note the pronouns:

"I told Raffaele" is strong language. This may indicate an argument.

Note "after that" is a passage of time, or skipping over. There is missing information at this point of her statement.

Note that "I believe" is weak; but when the weakness is added to: "we relaxed" (which, by itself is strong) is then added "together" (redundancy), we see deception. This needless emphasis is being made to place them together.

Note "perhaps" is a qualifier and she is not committed to the statement.

Note that she "perhaps" made love or perhaps read. This is more than just deceptive: it is an indication of someone else's presence:

Timing is an issue as she has skipped over time and withheld information (temporal lacunae).

Why would she need to say that she made love to Raffaele? She already introduced him with "we". This is an indication of not only deception, but of the presence, within sexual activity, of more than just Amanda Knox and Raffaele. We do not know the time frame since she has skipped time.

Note: Deceptive use of qualifiers. Again, see Dr. Eckman for this form of deception (memory). Note "perhaps" (qualifier) she made love "to" Raffaele. Sex is a theme in this case, and should be explored by investigators. First she says she may have made love TO Raffaele, then changes it to WITH him in the same sentence. The change in language would need to be explored.

However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time.

Note that the entry of water into a statement is often an indicator of sexual assault. Whether it is the washing of clothes, washing of hands, shower, bath, etc,

Here we have the first indicator that her roommate died as part of a sexual homicide.

Note that when she was with Raffaele, she had to mention that she had sex "with him" which is an indication that during sex, at least one other person was present. Now, with the entry of water into the statement is indicative that Amanda Knox was not simply present at the murder of Merideth, but that she was present for a sexual homicide.

Note that to be vague; indicates an attempt at deception. She reports what may have happened, with choices such as reading or sex. This lack of commitment indicates deception on her part.

Deception, in order to be deception, must be willful. Amanda Knox places herself at the scene of a crime, and then gives indicators of a sexual homicide. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.

The qualifiers resemble Casey Anthony. "In truth" means she speaks at times

outside of truth.

Note that " I do not remember" is an affirmation of what she does not know. This is a signal of deception. Note that she does remember, but only not "exactly"

Note "we" took a shower. This is the 2nd indicator in a short statement where water is introduced. The element of water is often found in statements where a sexual assault or homicide has taken place.

It is significant that she tells us that Raffaele "cleaned" her. While speaking, even when attempting to be deceptive, what is in the heart slips out and she may have been thinking of washing off blood when she gave this statement. Those that wish to excuse her due to police misconduct, or mishandling of evidence must do so by ignoring not only the fact that she lied, but that she employed the language of a sexual homicide in doing so.

"I dropped off (the hitchhiker), stopped to get gas and wash up. After that, I drove down I-95 until..."

This was a statement where a hitchhiker was murdered. The timeframe where he washed up showed the time of death.

The shower details are also interesting as it is used to pass time and sexuality. Sex is a theme in her statement. Think how you might describe your night; even if you had a romantic shower, would you include it? If you felt that you needed to, would you give details about ears? Sex is in her mind while giving this statement and should alert investigators to any sexual motive in the crime. Making love "to" not "with" her boyfriend may show that Amanda Knox strongly wanted to please him. This may speak to motive and just how far she went.

One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock.

The lack of commitment to the events is noted but we also see:

That which is in the negative: when someone tells us what they did not do, did not say, did not think, particularly when offered in an open sentence, it is a strong indicator of what they did do, did think, and did say. Here, she remembers that she did not look at the clock. This tells us:

She looked at the clock as time was significant.

Note that this is something that "definitely" happened, yet she then says "I think" showing the obvious contradiction. Deception noted.

It is like the statement where the person says "and I saw no one run across my lawn" indicating that she saw someone run across her lawn. Always flag anything offered in the negative.

Also note that "because" is sensitive as it explains why something took place. In a statement, we normally get what happened and not why something happened, and just as being told what didn't happen, the "why, because, therefore, so, since, etc" is highly sensitive to the subject.

After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).

Note "I noticed" is passive. Passive language seeks to conceal identity or responsibility. Note that the word "but" is used to refute what was just said. What does she refute? Noticing blood? It is the origin of the blood that she seeks to conceal, not the noticing.

Note that "after dinner" chronologically is when she "noticed" blood, but then in her statement she says "after we ate" is repeated, going back to the event. Truthful accounts are in chronological order and can be repeated backwards and forwards. Any time someone is out of chronological order, it should be flagged for deception.Always note when someone says that they "can't" say something; it can indicate that if they did tell the information, it would harm them. Here, she "can't" tell the time; yet has other details down carefully.

Note also any inclusion of thought/emotion within an event. When someone is giving a verbal or written statement, it has been shown through careful study that in the recall process, emotions and thoughts are added later; not in the actual event itself.

A statement has 3 general portions:

an introduction

the event

post event action

It is in the 3rd section that emotions and thoughts are most likely to be included in an honest statement.

note also the "balance" of a statement is where the introduction of an honest statement is about 25% of the statement; the event is 50%, and the post event (like calling 911, etc) is 25%. Any deviation is noted but strong deviation is a solid test for deception. This is covered in other analysis)

Note time: she "can't" tell us indicates that she is restricted by consequence, since we know that she looked at the clock.

The next thing I remember

temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize here

was waking up

note verb tense instead of "I woke up"

the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house.

Blood on his hand; need to wash, clean up, and now plastic bag of clothing.

It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.

note "very doubtful" qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession. This is because it is almost impossible to lie upon a lie. She can only doubt the lies she told earlier. Note "this" confession, rather than the expected "that" confession, had it been false.

"I'm doubtful" would show some weakness, but she adds even more with "very"

note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted.

Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.

Deception indicated.

This is an example of an extra word, ie, one in which the sentence works without, giving away information. She could have said "I didn't remember a fact" but instead says "I didn't remember a fact correctly" which would show deliberate deception. She cannot tell us what she didn' remember, only what she remembers, so this would place it in the negative, however, it wasn't remembered "correctly", indicating that she did remember it, just not "correctly"; and is another indication of deception.

Here, Knox comes close to a confession, even in her denial. Note what she calls the information: "fact"

I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.Here sensitivity is shown. She wants to show why she understands the police hit her in the head. Please note that the sentence about being hit is deceptive: It is both passive ("I was hit in the head") and she added in the word "correctly" about a fact. Now she wants to make peace with the police over being hit. There is no agreement nor excuse when one is physically assaulted. This is yet another sign that she is deceptive. Passivity is used when concealing is necessary. However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. Note the desire to separate herself from her mind. This is distancing language. Lying causes stress and here we see her desire to distance herself. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. She is lying. She did not see Patrik do these things: he was not there, so it is in order to alleviate the stress of lying she adds "in my mind" she saw; but not with her eyes. This is an example of one not technically lying, but being deceptive. Her choice of language, however, is interesting. It has to come from somewhere, as the brain knows, even when the tongue attempts deception. Here is the difference:1. She saw Patrik, but only in her mind. 2. She does not say that when she saw herself cowering in the kitchen, covering her ears and hearing Meredith screaming that this was only in her mind. In her "head" she heard screaming. What is the difference between "mind" and "head"?In the "mind" is often the source of the imagination. In the "head" is often where someone speaks of hearing screams, with the need to cover ears, with "head" often associated with a guilty conscience.

But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.She does not say that these things are unreal. She says that they only "seem" unreal, and only to her. She says that they are "like" a dream, rather than lie, outright, and say it was a dream.

Note that innocent people never accept nor excuse false work by

Even within fabrication, each word spoken (or written) is vital and should be examined within the forensics of the investigation.We have already seen the lack of ownership and now she only reports seeing things in her mind. Yet, in spite of lying, there may be many important elements within her account.

But the truth is,

This introduction tells us that she has lied and now wants to be believed

I am unsure about the truth and here's why: Note that "truth" repeated, shows sensitivity and the analyst should be on alert that "truth" is a sensitive topic to the subject. 1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true.

Knox is acutely aware of the evidence, the crime scene, and that she has been blamed. Here, she also quotes her boyfriend, though we note the embedded still: "I have said things that I know are not true" appears supported by the analysis.

I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this.

Note that she makes a point to say that Raffaele was gentle "with me"; indicating that he was not gentle with someone esle.

What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.

Amanda Knox may not know which inflicted blow killed Meredith.

Note that she does not say "Raffaele did not kill Meredith" but only that she does not "think" he did; leaving room for someone else to "think" otherwise.

Note that while attempting to describe him as "caring and gentle" she uses the word "with" which shows distance, but then "this", showing closeness, to the things he was saying. Amanda Knox brings herself close to the detail; not further away as expected with innocent people.

Note that "but" refutes what came before it. What came before it? "I don't think Raffaele killed Meredith"

She recognizes that he had a part in the killing.

Several indicators here, including qualifiers, adverbs,and the inclusion of "never" which here is offered (negation) which suggests that she did ask someone to lie for her. Note that she says "he walked into a situation" with "walk" a word indicating tension.

Note that she says Raffaele is in need of a "way out" of the situation.

Honestly,

Repeated use of similar statements is from habitual liar (childhood) who wants to be believed

The language of deception and now she recognizes her own lying and wants to be believed, so she calls attention to it

I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:

1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom.

This tells us what Knox has been attempting to do: confuse the police. The police are not "confused"; they recognize the incongruity of Knox' statements. This is the "muddy the waters" technique employed by the guilty (Jose Baez comes to mind)

The truth is,

noted that she has a need to announce truth, which brings the rest of her statement into question. This is something deceptive people do when they want to be believed.

I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered.

Note twice she goes to the negative: not sure what to think and what she did not think, yet, she adds in the weakened "definitely" to what she didn't think.

Note that the word, "someone" is gender free. This is an attempt to, perhaps, even lie to herself about the murder. She knows the gender of the victim.

I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

Note that frequently in murders, guilty perpetrators will minimize what happened. Meredith did not get "hurt", she was murdered.

Note "left quickly to take care of it" can be viewed with the "taking care" of the cleaning of the person and the apartment.

Note the use of the word "perhaps" as not only used when a subject is deceptive and does not want to be pinned down in a statement, but here it is used repeatedly, showing sensitivity.

Note that "because" is noted for sensitivity as it is outside the boundary of the general statement of "what happened" and shows a need to explain.

Liars have a difficult and stressful task of recalling what stories they have told and by adding "perhaps" and "maybe", they are able to later defend their inconsistency.

First, she lists posible excuses for not calling police, excuses that didnt cause her to be alarmed. Then she goes on to say that "perhaps" she was in "shock", which means that she would have had knowledge of a traumatic event. In the next sentence, the "shock" turned to "worry" which caused her to seek advice.

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating.

This is similar to an admission. It will be by pronoun that we see her confession.

And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house. Note again that "but" refutes what came first. She wants to "stand" behind the statements but...this is where it is difficult to lie about a lie. 3. I'm very confused at this time.

Note that she is "very" confused, but only "at this time"

My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.

Pronouns don't lie: Confession or Admission by pronoun.

Pronouns are instinctive and are exempt from the principle of personal, subjective, internal dictionary (LSI). We learn pronouns from childhood with possessive pronouns pre-dating speech for some ("my" and "mine" via hand signals by toddlers)We take possession of what we believe is ours; we do not take possession of what we do not want. OJ Simpson said, "...for those of you who believe in my guilt..."Stephen Trunscott: "I didn't really know my victim..."Here, Amanda Knox says "my involvement in Meredith's death" shows ownership of the involvement: it is an admission by pronoun.

"I know" adds to the 3 pointed denial, making it unreliable and weak. Please note that this author believes that Amanda Knox may not have inflicted the final blow upon the victim, but was present for the homicide.

That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.

She falsely accused him, willing for him to spend the rest of his life in prison.

The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:

These are questions she poses for herself, and may indicate she is speaking to herself

1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?2. Why did I think of Patrik?

Couldn't she come up with someone else? Did she not realize that he would be able to have his alibi verified?

3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?

Admission by pronoun that she was there.

4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith's death with a word: MY. Someone who was not involved in Meredith's death would not state "my involvement", because they would not own it.

The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.

Amanda Knox would not pass a polygraph. She fails the polygraphy of Statement Analysis and places herself at the scene of the murder and is deceptive throughout her account. She, by her own words, tells us that this is a sexual homicide, not just a homicide, and that she took part in it; present for the activity. She places herself by the crime scene and even though she attempts to deceive, her words give her away. She has nothing to be afraid of but lies, which would appear that she feared her lies were not bought by police.

It is likely that she, Amanda Knox, did not inflict the final death blow, and that she is not sure who's blow or cut was the final one that caused Meredith's death. This is why she said she did not "think" that Raffaele killed her, "but". This was likely a sexual assault that several took place in where they would each blame the other.

She attempts to build an alibi for herself, indicating the need for alibi, and she attempts to explain away the washing away of evidence on her part.

Amanda Knox was part of a sexual homicide. This comes from her own words, and is not changed if prosecutors are corrupt or honorable, nor if evidence was dropped or mishandled. Amanda Knox, herself, has told us that she was part of a sexual homicide, was present, and that she knows hard evidence thus proves it.

If her initial confession is thrown out, this statement itself shows her involvement. It is difficult to imagine anyone trained in interviewing and interrogation claiming that this statement is truthful. Mishandling evidence or dropping something, or not wearing gloves may cause difficulties, but it does not mean that Amanda Knox didn't take part in the murder. Her own words show that she did.

We've covered some terribly violent crimes in this blog, searching for the truth.

We've only just begun, as a society, to understand the impact of violence on the brain, and upon the loved ones of the victim. Even after thousands of years of experience, or collecting data, people still know so little about how insidious the suffering is of those who have experienced sexual abuse, and the suffering of those who love the victims. Some brave souls venture out to tell the world, but even then, they minimize and avoid some of the 'dark places' where the hurt leaves them unable to articulate. I think of RA Dickey's brave book, even while applying Avinoam Sapir's SCAN technique to see that he has only scratched the surface of suffering.

We hope for justice, even as we study deception, knowing that the end of violence is death.

Here, on Easter, 2013, is the story of someone who suffered much.

He had, as a young man, likely obtained a good portion in this world. Married in his social status, he had a good education and a bright future ahead of him where he would prosper.

He also knew a good opportunity when he saw it.

There was a group who were hated as they sought to overturn the culture and had the audacity to challenge his own status. As tensions grew, eventually violence exploded and like all violence, there are those who seize the opportunity to make a name for themselves. Some do so with ferocity, while others do it with cleverness, or cunning planning, efficient killing and good book keeping.

He was the latter.

He didn't get his own hands dirty with blood, but was efficient at ridding out these 'rats' who were taken to meeting in some of the most unseemly places.

His status grew and his nation showed its appreciation of his ability to root out the enemy, and saw his 'courage' to stand forth during the executions.

One execution, in particular, stood out among the rest. He, himself, signed the death order for a young man who stood bravely during death, not flinching as he had thought he might.

It unnerved him.

It stayed with him, robbing him of appetite and sleep. The young man seemed to almost haunt him in his dreams, until one day, while walking along the road, leading a troop to root out another enemy band, he came upon a day that would forever change his life.

A voice said, "Why do you persecute me?"

The man did not know who the voice's owner was; those around him heard something, but it was unintelligible to him.

He was struck blind, bereft of his powerful logic and sense, and had to call upon his enemy to help him.

From there, he was no longer called "Saul", but "Paul."

For years, Paul labored incessantly, for the good of others, but as it is with hatred, those of whom he once hated, he embraced, while those who once applauded him, hated him.

How bad was the hatred?

Some made death threats against him. In fact, as the hatred against him grew, so did the death threats, to the point where it was no longer whispered in shadows. In one town where he went, men bound themselves to a sacred oath, important in their culture, that they would not eat food until they had killed him.

Eventually, Paul was cornered and from the strong arm of hatred, in a growing confident crowd, came a small rock that struck him across the eye. He clutched his eye, now bleeding, as the crowd saw him, and were filled with rage, and soon more rocks came and more rocks.

As police arrived, the crowd dispersed and the man, severely wounded, had his wounds tended to, but his eye, most likely, would not only never be the same, but left him visibly marred, ugly to look at, scarred.

Yet, in spite of this horrific event, he continued his work, going from town to town, demanding repentance of wayward living and forgiveness for those who sought it.

The hatred, however, followed him as well. He was careful not to take anything from anyone his own hands did not earn, so even though it was within his right to do so, he instead sewed tents for sale, using the money to pay for his food and lodging, a common worker, who once had come from the upper class. He felt honored to do so, but rumors began that he was ruining the income of others and one day the crowd, mixed audience at best, began to turn, and like what had happened years earlier, happened again. He was brutally attacked, again, with rocks, terribly injured and discouraged.

He likely suffered nightmares and flashbacks, and had to live with the sense of hyper vigilance. At one point, he was so broken, hungry, tired and beat up, that he despaired even of his own life. The violence would unnerve any of us.

Then came the third and final stoning. This time his enemies would make certain that the broken, now much older appearing man, would not survive, and they planted complainers in the audience who lied about Paul's work, until the rage was so bad that the stones rained down upon him.

This time, the crowd left satisfied as his apparent lifeless body lay unattended to. They left believing that they had silenced him, finally.

Paul survived this third stoning and as the months passed, some of his old strength returned to his body, and he returned to his message of love.

Depression, melancholy, despair, accompanied him, but so did joy, refreshment and drive. Looking far older than his years, through the things that he suffered, one of his closest friends turned on him, accusing him of seeking to be front and center, the very place that got Paul almost killed. In one last violent outburst from a crowd psychology of rage, he was almost pulled in two, saved by the police, but under arrest for causing a riot.

He was placed, and forgotten, in a cold, cement style jail cell, likely beneath the ground, with rain and sewer water seeping in. He was hungry, cold, terribly lonely, and under the sentence of death which would be, in this culture, be-heading.

He offered a prayer in this most dire of circumstance.

He likely thought of his early life, in the upper class, wearing the finest clothing, making good money, early retirement, comfort, and the prestige of his fellow man; all things he had long abandoned in life. Here he sat, heavy iron shakles cutting into his frail ankles, shivering from the cold, and lonely beyond belief.

What did he pray for?

I have long thought about what I would have prayed for in his shoes. Perhaps I would have prayed for a pair of shoes for my cold feet? Perhaps I would have prayed to have my friends raise bail money, or a judge to set me free, or just a warm meal. How I would have longed for the comfort of a baked potato or some form of protein! I would have prayed for my freedom, to see my wife, my children, the faces of those I loved!

I would have prayed for myself.

What did Paul pray for?

"To know Him and the power of the resurrection..."
Even as I read his words, I feel tears welling up in me. I don't understand his words, but I want to.

"To know Him and the power of the resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings..."
The "fellowship of His sufferings"? I know that when I celebrate with my loved ones, it brings us closer, but it is when I join in to the suffering of someone I love, I become much, much closer to my loved one. People that rejoice together are close, but people who suffer together are closer. It reminds me of Abraham, climbing a mountain as an old man, for 3 days, with the young man, Isaac, by his side, looking over at Isaac, each time, as if his heart would break...

being conformed to His death, if somehow I may arrive to the resuurection of the dead."
I am selfish. I think I would have prayed for that warm meal, that warm blanket, my bail, my release...I would have prayed fervently for just a small dose of comfort; Tylenol to ease my fever from the chills and shaking...anything.

I don't understand Paul.

I don't understand him, but I would like to.

I often wonder what people think of as they contemplate their own mortality. We are all going to die one day, this is not something that our status, abilities, or money can change. The older I get the more I think of it.

I read recently on Facebook the expression about being given the chance to live life over again. The point of the poem, or the saying, is that if I had to live life over again, I would not change a thing. Life, including my mistakes, has made me who I am today.

Not me.

If I were given the chance to live my life over again, I'd take back every wayward hurtful word that ever proceeded from my mouth. I'd be a better son to my parents, a better student to my teachers, and seek to have helped others in times I did not. I have lots of regret, under the sun, and even though their are other purposes above the sun, I don't see them. I'd rather go back and not have pained others than pridefully boast I did it "my" way. My way wasn't always in the best interest of others.

Why didn't Paul pray for a blanket?

Why do I fret over mortgage payments, heating costs, and feeding... Clancy?

eats 4lbs a day

Why didn't Paul pray for his freedom?

I'll have to think about it. In the meanwhile:

Happy Easter.

I'm grateful for truth, and know that justice doesn't sleep, even when we think it does.

Texas district attorney, wife, found dead in county where prosecutor was killed

A North Texas county district attorney and his wife were found dead in their home two months after one of his assistants was gunned down near their office, authorities said.

Investigators found the bodies of Kaufman County District Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife, Cynthia, on Saturday, said Kaufman County sheriff's Lt. Justin Lewis. Police, FBI agents, Texas Rangers and deputies were part of the investigation.

Kaufman Police Chief Chris Aulbaugh could not confirm that the deaths were related to the murder of Kaufman County Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse, the Dallas Morning News reported.

A masked gunman shot Hasse multiple times in the parking lot behind the Kaufman County Courthouse annex on Jan. 31.

No arrests have been made in connection with Hasse's murder, according to MyFoxDFW.com.

"It is a shock," Aulbaugh told the paper. "It was a shock with Mark Hasse, and now you can just imagine the double shock and until we know what happened, I really can't confirm that it's related but you always have to assume until it's proven otherwise."

Sam Rosander, who lives in the same unincorporated area of Kaufman County as the McLellands, told The Associated Press that sheriff's deputies were parked in the district attorney's driveway for about a month after Hasse was killed.

Aulbaugh said recently that the FBI was checking to see if Hasse's killing could be related to the March 19 killing of Colorado Department of Corrections head Tom Clements, who was gunned down after answering the doorbell at his home. He said it's routine for authorities to look for possible links when there are similarities between two deaths.

Evan Spencer Ebel, a former Colorado inmate and white supremacist who authorities believe killed Clements and a pizza deliveryman two days earlier, was killed in a March 21 shootout with Texas deputies about 100 miles from Kaufman.

Hasse was chief of the organized crime unit when he was an assistant prosecutor in Dallas County in the 1980s, and he handled similar cases in Kaufman County, 33 miles southeast of Dallas.

McLelland had said Hasse was one of 12 attorneys on his staff, all of whom handle hundreds of cases at a time.

"Anything anybody can think of, we're looking through," McLelland said after the assistant prosecutor was killed.

In recent years, Hasse played major roles in Kaufman County's most high-profile cases, including one in which a justice of the peace was convicted on theft and burglary charges and another in which a man was convicted of killing his former girlfriend and her 10-year-old daughter.

McLelland graduated from the University of Texas before a 23-year career in the Army, according to the website for the district attorney's office. He later earned his law degree from the Texas Wesleyan School of Law.

He and his wife have two daughters and three sons. One son is a police officer in Dallas.